|
Post by Admin on Dec 16, 2018 11:33:22 GMT -5
A legitimate question has been asked after I said it is okay to talk about the Civil War and Vietnam. The question is, "Where do we draw the line?" What I meant was talking about these events as historical events. You can do that without talking politics.
So, what is the line? The line is simple: a sitting President is current. Everything about his term and how it affects our country is current. Once he is out of office it becomes history. Is that clear enough?
|
|
|
Post by yellowstone2014 on Dec 16, 2018 13:20:40 GMT -5
I suggest, if somebody is talking about historical war or politics should do it here and not in the "Jackie" threads, please.
|
|
|
Post by agog on Dec 16, 2018 17:41:34 GMT -5
So it's OK to discuss how bad Obama's terms in office were for this country?
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 16, 2018 19:13:36 GMT -5
I prefer that there be no political talk. Obama is so recent it could ruffle some feathers.
|
|
|
Post by eulenspiegel on Dec 16, 2018 22:34:44 GMT -5
A legitimate question has been asked after I said it is okay to talk about the Civil War and Vietnam. The question is, "Where do we draw the line?" What I meant was talking about these events as historical events. You can do that without talking politics. So, what is the line? The line is simple: a sitting President is current. Everything about his term and how it affects our country is current. Once he is out of office it becomes history. Is that clear enough? To stress again - I have no interest in a political fight here...my only interest was to correct the false impression about AH...I could have easily linked scientific historical articles about the characteristics/psychological aspects of dictators/aspect of charisma/how they handled their policy ...and the forum would have exploded because history has always connotation to now/future. Same e.g. civil war - e.g. how it is taught in schools today - last week new curriculum in Texas? A Evancho forum - a music forum- without politics is impossible - even in the Evancho/Music Threads - legal acts music business/politics about licences/streaming/handling of culture in US politics/medic care for musicians etc. etc. From a political science point of view there is simply no world without politics ...even the decisision not talking about politics is a political decision. I don't want to start a political discussion with this post - I just wanted to point out that it's not so easy.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2018 22:39:23 GMT -5
A legitimate question has been asked after I said it is okay to talk about the Civil War and Vietnam. The question is, "Where do we draw the line?" What I meant was talking about these events as historical events. You can do that without talking politics. So, what is the line? The line is simple: a sitting President is current. Everything about his term and how it affects our country is current. Once he is out of office it becomes history. Is that clear enough? To stress again - I have no interest in a political fight here...my only interest was to correct the false impression about AH...I could have easily linked scientific historical articles about the characteristics/psychological aspects of dictators/aspect of charisma/how they handled their policy ...and the forum would have exploded because history has always connotation to now/future. Same e.g. civil war - e.g. how it is taught in schools today - last week new curriculum in Texas? A Evancho forum - a music forum- without politics is impossible - even in the Evancho/Music Threads - legal acts music business/politics about licences/streaming/handling of culture in US politics/medic care for musicians etc. etc. From a political science point of view there is simply no world without politics ...even the decisision not talking about politics is a political decision. I don't want to start a political discussion with this post - I just wanted to point out that it's not so easy. But it can be avoided if one respects the membership and it's vote to not allow it.
|
|
|
Post by eulenspiegel on Dec 16, 2018 22:49:53 GMT -5
To stress again - I have no interest in a political fight here...my only interest was to correct the false impression about AH...I could have easily linked scientific historical articles about the characteristics/psychological aspects of dictators/aspect of charisma/how they handled their policy ...and the forum would have exploded because history has always connotation to now/future. Same e.g. civil war - e.g. how it is taught in schools today - last week new curriculum in Texas? A Evancho forum - a music forum- without politics is impossible - even in the Evancho/Music Threads - legal acts music business/politics about licences/streaming/handling of culture in US politics/medic care for musicians etc. etc. From a political science point of view there is simply no world without politics ...even the decisision not talking about politics is a political decision. I don't want to start a political discussion with this post - I just wanted to point out that it's not so easy. But it can be avoided if one respects the membership and it's vote to not allow it. So if there is a dicussion about Jackies earnings...on the spot there will be a discussion about the political faults ..about responsibility. When we discuss about todays mostly trash music, why only older people at classic events...automatically there has to be a discussion about music in schools, of cuts in culture policy etc. Only saying something is not allowed ...is not the solution (2:00ff)
|
|
|
Post by ursus on Dec 16, 2018 23:08:11 GMT -5
I prefer that there be no political talk. Obama is so recent it could ruffle some feathers. I also prefer that there is no political talk, but I agree with Eulenspiegel in that it is impossible.
I think that when you wrote "Obama is so recent it could ruffle some feathers", you are too optimistic -- it will ruffle some feathers. I don't know why messages boards almost always attract political comments, even if the topic, like this one, is inherently nonpolitical, but they do.
Interest in Jackie is what drew me to this forum and probably drew everyone here. Jackie herself stated two years ago that she wasn't interested in politics. It would be nice if we could follow her lead on this and not discuss politics here. In actuality, I am sure that she has political interests, but she wants to have fans from all political persuasions. I agree.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 16, 2018 23:12:42 GMT -5
I would prefer a political free zone in here as well.
|
|
|
Post by eulenspiegel on Dec 16, 2018 23:24:35 GMT -5
I prefer that there be no political talk. Obama is so recent it could ruffle some feathers. I also prefer that there is no political talk, but I agree with Eulenspiegel in that it is impossible.
I think that when you wrote "Obama is so recent it could ruffle some feathers", you are too optimistic -- it will ruffle some feathers. I don't know why messages boards almost always attract political comments, even if the topic, like this one, is inherently nonpolitical, but they do.
Interest in Jackie is what drew me to this forum and probably drew everyone here. Jackie herself stated two years ago that she wasn't interested in politics. It would be nice if we could follow her lead on this and not discuss politics here. In actuality, I am sure that she has political interests, but she wants to have fans from all political persuasions. I agree.
Jackie is a very political person...taking part at the inauguration was - if you like it or not/if you agree with decision or not - one of the most political decisions of a musician in recent years
Jackies handling of her sisters situation was very political - TV interviews every social media post was a political statement - not to to forget her video to the song...?
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Dec 17, 2018 3:50:23 GMT -5
I have rethought this. The members voted no politics. There were no exceptions. I have rewritten the politics rule:
3) The members have voted No Politics therefore politics will not be allowed anywhere on our forum at the discretion of the admins. Not everyone has the same definition of politics.
There will be no talk of politics here past, or present. This is a music forum. If you want to talk politics find a politics forum. I'm sure there are many to choose from.
|
|
|
Post by johnnyb on Dec 17, 2018 8:33:18 GMT -5
I have rethought this. The members voted no politics. There were no exceptions. I have rewritten the politics rule: 3) The members have voted No Politics therefore politics will not be allowed anywhere on our forum at the discretion of the admins. Not everyone has the same definition of politics. There will be no talk of politics here past, or present. This is a music forum. If you want to talk politics find a politics forum. I'm sure there are many to choose from. I've been saying that for years Rick, but Cox and Busby like to stir the pot.
|
|
|
Post by agog on Dec 19, 2018 0:20:18 GMT -5
I've been saying that for years Rick, but Cox and Busby like to stir the pot. Don't forget that I like to run for offices from this site.
|
|
|
Post by rob49 on Dec 19, 2018 3:52:02 GMT -5
Can the terms used for the Thumb Up and Thumb Down be changed from like and dislike, to Agree and Disagree?
|
|
|
Post by ursus on Dec 19, 2018 4:59:32 GMT -5
Can the terms used for the Thumb Up and Thumb Down be changed from like and dislike, to Agree and Disagree? I, for one, prefer the current words. I have liked posts which I disagree with, because I regard them as good posts.
|
|